Walikubaliana kwa pamoja kwamba Waislamu ndio walengwa wa amri hiyo, wawe wanaume au wanawake, wadogo au wakubwa, watumwa au walio huru, kwa sababu ya hadithi iliyotangulia ya Ibn Umar, isipokuwa upotofu wa al-Layth, ambaye aliwaondoa wakazi wa mji mkuu katika wajibu wa kutoa zakat al-fitr, na kuifunga kwa wakazi wa vijijini, lakini hana ushahidi kwa hili. Upotofu mwingine unapatikana katika maoni ya wale wasioifanya kuwa wajibu kwa niaba ya mayatima. Kuhusu watu ambao kwa niaba yao inakuwa wajibu, walikubaliana kwamba ni wajibu kwa kila mtu awezaye kuitoa kwa niaba yake mwenyewe, kwani ni zakat ya mtu na si ya mali. Pia ni wajibu kwa mtu kuitoa kwa niaba ya watoto wake wadogo ikiwa hawana mali yao wenyewe huru, na vilevile kwa watumwa ikiwa hawana mali yoyote. Wametofautiana kuhusu yaliyo nje ya haya.

They agreed unanimously that the Muslims are the addressees in the command, whether male or female, minor or major, slave or freeman, because of the preceding tradition of Ibn TJmar, except the deviation by al-Layth, who exempted the residents of the capital from the obligation to pay zakat al-fitr, and restricted it to the residents of the villages, but he has no evidence for this. Another deviation is found in the opinion of those who do not make it obligatory on behalf of the orphans. As to the persons on whose behalf it is obligatory, they agreed that it is obligatory on each person who is able to pay it on his own behalf, for it is a zakat on the person and not on wealth. It is also obligatory on the person to pay it on behalf of his minor children if they do not own independent wealth, and also for slaves if they do not own any wealth. They differed over what is besides this.

Muhtasari wa maoni ya Malik ni kwamba mtu analazimika kulipa zakat al-fitr kwa niaba ya watu wote ambao matumizi yao ni wajibu wake. Al-Shafi'i alikubaliana naye juu ya hili, lakini wanatofautiana kuhusu mzozo wao wa nani mtu analazimika kumtunza iwapo yuko katika hali ngumu. Abu Hanifa alipingana naye kuhusu mke, akasema kwamba yeye mwenyewe ndiye alipe kwa ajili ya nafsi yake. Abu Thawr alipingana nao katika kesi ya mtumwa mwenye mali. Alisema kwamba iwapo ana mali, yeye mwenyewe ndiye alipe kwa ajili ya nafsi yake, na bwana wake asilipe kwa niaba yake. Hili pia lilikubaliwa na Wazahiri. Wengi wanashikilia kwamba mtu hana wajibu wa kulipa kwa niaba ya watoto wake wadogo iwapo wana mali yao wenyewe inayotosha kwa zakat al-fitr. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, na Malik. Al-Hasan alisema kwamba wajibu uko juu ya baba, na iwapo atalipa kutokana na mali ya mwanawe (mtoto), anapaswa kuirejesha.

The summary of Malik’s opinion is that a person is obliged to pay zakat al- fitr on behalf of all persons whose maintenance is obligatory on him. Al-ShafiT agreed with him on this, but they differ with reference to their dispute over whom a man is obliged to maintain if he is in difficult straits. Abu HanTfa opposed him with respect to a wife and said that she is to pay for herself. Abu Thawr opposed them in the case of a slave who owns wealth. He said that if he has wealth he is to pay for himself, and his master is not to pay on his behalf. This was also upheld by the Zahirites. The majority maintain that a man is not obliged to pay on behalf of his minor children if they have their own wealth sufficient for zakat al-fitr. This was the opinion of al-Shafi*!, Abu HanTfa, and Malik. Al-Hasan said that the liability is upon the father, and if he pays it out of the wealth of his son (child) he is to compensate it.

Utajiri si sharti la aina hii ya zakatul-fitr kwa mujibu wa wanazuoni wengi, wala hakuna nisabu. Wao wameweka sharti tu kwamba zakat hii iwe ni ziada juu ya mahitaji yake ya chakula kwa nafsi yake na kwa familia yake. Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walisema kuwa haiwajibiki kwa mtu anayestahiki kupokea sadaka, kwani haiwezekani mtu awe mwenye kulazimika kuitoa na pia awe mwenye kustahiki kuipokea. Jambo hili liko wazi, na Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi.

Affluence is not a condition for this kind of zakat, according to most of the jurists, and there is no nisdb, but they only stipulated that this zakat be a surplus over his need for food for himself and for his family. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that it is not obligatory on a person entitled to claim sadaqa, as it is not possible that a person should be liable for it as well as entitled to it. This is evident, Allah knows best.

Wengi wanashikilia kwamba zakat hii haitegemei sharti la kuwa mukallaf (yaani mtu mwenye jukumu la kutekeleza ibada), kama ilivyo kwa aina nyingine za ibada. Wajibu huu, kwa hiyo, unawahusu watoto wadogo na watumwa (pamoja na mtu mwenye wazimu). (Hulipwa kwa niaba yao na mlezi wao au mtu anayewatunza.) Wale waliofahamu kutokana na hili kwamba sababu ya msingi ya hukm ni wilaya walisema kwamba mtu mwenye wilaya analazimika kutoa sadaqa (zakat al-fitr) kwa wote walio chini ya ulezi wake. Wale waliofahamu kwamba sababu ni matumizi ya kuwatunza walisema kwamba ni mtu anayewatunza ndiye anayepaswa kutoa zakat al-fitr kwa wote ambao kisheria analazimika kuwatunza. Tofauti hii ilitokea kwa sababu wote walikubaliana kuhusu mtoto mdogo na mtumwa, na ni kesi hizi mbili zinazoonyesha kwamba zakat hii haihusiani na mtu mwenye jukumu la ibada peke yake, bali hulipwa kwa niaba ya wengine pale ulezi na wajibu wa kuwatunza unapokuwepo. Malik, basi, alishikilia kwamba sababu ya msingi ni wajibu wa kuwatunza, huku Abu Hanifa akishikilia kwamba sababu hapa ni wilaya, na kwa sababu hiyo walitofautiana kuhusu mke. Imepokewa kama hadithi ya marfu\u1d3a kwamba: “Toeni zakat al-fitr kwa niaba ya wote ambao mzigo wa kuwatunza umewekwa juu yenu”. Hata hivyo, haijulikani sana.

The majority maintain that this zakat is not dependent on the prerequisite of being a mukallaf (that is, a person responsible for the performance of worship), as is the case with other forms of worship. The obligation, therefore, applies to minors arid slaves (and to the insane person). (It is to be paid on their behalf by their guardian or maintainer.) Those who understood from this that the underlying cause of the hukm is wilaya said that the w/f is under an obligation to pay the sadaqa (zakat al-fitr) for all those who are under his guardianship. Those who understood the cause to be maintenance said that it is the maintainer who is to pay the zakat al-fitr for all those whom he is obliged to maintain under the law. This disagreement arose because they agreed over the minor and the slave, and it is these two cases that point out that this zakat is not linked to the person of the mukallaf alone, but is owed on behalf of others if guardianship and the obligation to maintain exist. Malik, then, maintained that the underlying cause is the obligation to maintain, while Abu HanTfa held that the cause here is wilaya, and for that reason they differed over the wife. It is related as a marfuS tradition that: “Pay the zakat al-fitr on behalf of all those whose burden of maintenance has been placed upon you”. It is, however, not well-known.

Walitofautiana kuhusu kesi ya watumwa katika masuala kadhaa. La kwanza, kama tulivyotaja, ni wajibu wa zakaa yake kwa bwana wake endapo (mtumwa) ana mali. Hili linategemea swali la kama anaweza kumiliki kitu au hawezi. Kesi ya pili inahusu mtumwa asiyeamini, je, bwana wake alipe zakaa kwa niaba yake. Malik, al-Shafi'i na Ahmad walisema kwamba hakuna wajibu wa zakaa kwa bwana kwa mtumwa wake asiyeamini. Al-Kufiyyun walisema kwamba bwana anawajibika kulipa zakaa kwa niaba yake. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu nyongeza katika suala lililowekwa katika hadithi ya Ibn 'Umar. Hii inahusu maneno yake "Waislamu", ambayo Nafi' amepingana nayo, kwa kuwa Ibn 'Umar, ambaye ndiye msimulizi wa hadithi hiyo, pia alikuwa na maoni kwamba zakaa ilipwe kwa niaba ya watumwa wasioamini. Kuna sababu nyingine ya kutofautiana, nayo ni kama wajibu wa zakaa kwa bwana kwa ajili ya mtumwa wake unatokana na ukweli kwamba mtumwa ni mukallaf (mwenye jukumu la kisheria) au kwamba yeye ni mali. Wale waliodai kuwa ni kwa sababu ya kuwa mukallaf waliweka sharti kwamba awe muumini, ilhali wale waliosema kuwa ni kwa sababu ya kuwa mali hawakuweka sharti hilo. Wanazuoni hawa wa mwisho walisema kwamba hili linathibitishwa na makubaliano ya wanazuoni kwamba endapo mtumwa ataachiwa huru na bwana wake hakuwa amelipa zakaat al-fitr kwa niaba yake, si wajibu kwake kulipa, kama ilivyo katika kafara. Suala la tatu linahusu mukatab. Malik na Abu Thawr walisema kwamba bwana anapaswa kulipa zakaat al-fitr kwa niaba yake. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa na Ahmad walisema kwamba hana wajibu wa kulipa kwa niaba yake. Sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na kusitasita kwa hali ya mukatab kati ya mtu huru na mtumwa. La nne ni kesi ya watumwa walionunuliwa kwa ajili ya biashara. Malik, al-Shafi'i, na Ahmad walisema kwamba bwana ana wajibu wa kutoa zakat al-fitr kwa niaba yao, wakati Abu Hanifa na wengine wasiokuwa wao walisema kwamba hakuna sadaqa inayolazimika kwa watumwa wanaomilikiwa kwa madhumuni ya biashara. Sababu ya kutofautiana huku inatokana na mgongano kati ya qiyas (kipimo cha kulinganisha) na maana ya jumla ya hadithi. Hii ni kwa sababu maana ya jumla ya neno mtumwa (lililotumika katika hadithi iliyotangulia) inaashiria wajibu wa zakat kwa watumwa wanaomilikiwa kwa biashara pamoja na wengine. Kwa mtazamo wa Abu Hanifa, maana hii ya jumla inapunguzwa kwa qiyas, na hilo linatokana na kukutana kwa aina mbili za zakat katika aina moja ya mali. Vilevile walitofautiana katika kesi ya watumwa wanaomilikiwa na watumwa, na kesi zilizo chini ya mada hii ni nyingi.

They disagreed over the case of slaves on a number of issues. The first, as we have mentioned, is the obligation of his zakat on his master if he (the slave) has wealth. This is based on the point of whether he can or cannot own something. The second case is about the slave who is a disbeliever, whether he (the master) should pay zakat on his behalf. Malik, al-ShafiT, and Ahmad said that there is no obligation of zakat on the master for his disbelieving slave. The KufTs said that he is liable for zakat on his behalf. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the addition on the issue laid down in the tradition of Ibn TJmar. This relates to his words “the Muslims”, over which Nafic has been opposed, as Ibn TJmar being the narrator of the tradition also held the opinion that zakat is to be paid on behalf, of disbelieving slaves. There is another reason for the disagreement and that is whether the obligation of zakat on the master for his slave is due to the fact that the slave is a mukallaf or whether he is property. Those who maintained that it is due to his being a mukallaf stipulated that being a believer is a condition, while those who said that it is due to his being property did not stipulate it. These latter jurists said that this is indicated by the consensus of the jurists that if the slave is freed and the master has not paid zakat al-fitr on his behalf, it is not obligatory for him to pay as in the case in expiation. The third issue is about the mukdtab. Malik and Abu Thawr said that-the master is to pay zakat al-fitr on his behalf. Al-Shafi T, Abu HanTfa, and Ahmad said that c he is not obliged to pay on his behalf. The reason for the disagreement emanates from the vacillation of the case of the mukdtab between a freeman and slave. The fourth is the case of slaves acquired for trade. Malik, al-ShaficT, and Ahmad held that the master is obliged to pay zakat al-fitr on their behalf, while Abu HanTfa and others besides him said that there is no sadaqa payable for slaves owned for purposes of trade. The reason for the disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the general implication (in the tradition). This is so as the general implication of the word slave (used in the preceding tradition) implies the obligation of zakat for slaves owned for trade as well as others. In Abu HanTfa’s view this general implication is restricted by analogy, and that is due to the convergence of tw'o kinds of zakat in a single type of wealth. They disagreed, likewise, in the case of slaves owned by slaves and the cases under this topic are many.